2008 The Year Man-Made Global Warming Was Disproved

[Mistermj]

MJ, what is your point?
Yes, I said that a consensus is when everybody agrees, and I still believe that to be true. I accept that there are some English definitions of the term that seem to mean that the agreement does not have to be total (all german definitions I know don't allow any explicit dissent). If that means my statement was not 100% correct then so be it. But there is not one definition that allows for a vocal minority of hundreds of persons. So all you do is playing semantic games without being able to prove your point (that I claimed there is a consensus among scientists).

My guess is that you misunderstood something. It is true that some people speak of a "consensus opinion", but they almost always mean the UN reports, where the scientists taking part in that study did indeed reach a consensus. But that does, of course, not mean there is a consensus among all scientists, and I most certainly did not claim this.

As to my "arguments on behalf of global warming", can you please explain what you mean by this? I have stated repeatedly that I'm not convinced that global warming is real and man-made, I only think that at the current point we would be foolish to off-handedly dismiss the theory. MJ, don't you think attacking arguments I never made is a little bit foolish? ;-)
Why don't you, for a change, tell me what you think about my post #61? If you can show that my logic is wrong there then you may actually score a point. I'd also be interested in the correct temperature stats for the past years, seeing that you are not prepared to accept the graph Funk posted.
Or do you prefer to play mindless games in order to avoid a substantial discussion?

Preussen: MJ, until you, for a change, exhibit some intellectual honesty and admit that you are in no way qualified to off-handedly dismiss the opinion of the majority of scientists you will never get any kind of credibility.

This is what started the whole debate. You failed to answer my question...what majority of scientists? There is no such thing.

It's a bald faced lie.

Science doesn't depend on polls...polls are purely political.

Which is my point all along...the Global warming agenda is political...not scientific in nature.

If the majority of scientists statement is just a lie, I can certainly dismiss it out hand. I don't need to be a scientist to do that.

Besides the fact that a majority of scientists doesn't mean anything from a science perspective.

I called your bullshit...and you don't like it...thats all. :toast:

 

[Preussen]

...
If the majority of scientists statement is just a lie, I can certainly dismiss it out hand...

Very true. If it is a lie.
So in order to off-handedly dismiss the global warming theory you have to know that it is not true. If you are honest you will admit that you cannot know that. You may be able to point out some flaws in the theory, but to be certain that it is wrong (or even, as you are implying, an intentional lie) you'd need proof. You obviously do not have such proof, meaning you choose to completely disregard a potential danger simply because you do not want to believe in it, which is an irresponsible behaviour. That is my point, and everything in your last posts is only an attempt at distraction because you cannot refute this argument.

I'm tired of your games. Show us that at least one of the questions I mentioned in my post #61 can, with a certainty adequate to the potential danger in question, be answered with 'No'. If you can do that I will openly admit that you are right and I am wrong. If, however, you cannot do it, then just shut up.

 

[Mistermj]

Very true. If it is a lie.
So in order to off-handedly dismiss the global warming theory you have to know that it is not true. If you are honest you will admit that you cannot know that. You may be able to point out some flaws in the theory, but to be certain that it is wrong (or even, as you are implying, an intentional lie) you'd need proof. You obviously do not have such proof, meaning you choose to completely disregard a potential danger simply because you do not want to believe in it, which is an irresponsible behaviour. That is my point, and everything in your last posts is only an attempt at distraction because you cannot refute this argument.

I'm tired of your games. Show us that at least one of the questions I mentioned in my post #61 can, with a certainty adequate to the potential danger in question, be answered with 'No'. If you can do that I will openly admit that you are right and I am wrong. If, however, you cannot do it, then just shut up.

I'll be happy to answer any of your questions Preussen...but fair is fair.

I see no reason why I should have to answer your question when you continue to ignore the first question that started this debate.

One last time...this is your last chance. No more games.

What majority of scientists? There is no such thing.

It's a bald faced lie.

 

[Preussen]

MJ, you know very well that this is not the point.
But if this is so important to you and if it helps to have a sensible debate, I, against my conviction, won't even insist on the term "majority". Fact is, the scientists who believe in global warming have convinced governments all over the world that measures have to be taken. You can either a) join the type of TR and Loren and believe that this is all a giant political conspiracy (thereby justifying your inclusion in the "kook of the year" poll, I guess) or b) admit that in order to make such an impression on politicians the scientists who believe that global warming is a real or at last potential danger must be so many and so credible that they cannot simply be ignored.
If you choose option a) this discussion is finished until you prove this world-wide conspiration. If you choose option b), would you please respond to my points?

 

[Mistermj]

MJ, you know very well that this is not the point.

Another lie by Preussen to cover up his other lie.

Of course it's the point!..and it's the point that started this debate. And you chose to ignore it twice...in two consecutive posts on page 2 of this thread.

<table id="post6223140" class="tborder" width="100%" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="thead" style="border-style: solid none solid solid; border-color: rgb(253, 222, 130) -moz-use-text-color rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130); border-width: 1px 0px 1px 1px; font-weight: normal;">

12-29-2008, 03:32 PM <!-- / status icon and date --> </td> <td class="thead" style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 0px; font-weight: normal;" align="right"> #31 </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td class="alt2" style="border-style: none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(253, 222, 130); border-width: 0px 1px;" width="175"> Mistermj <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_6223140", true); </script>
RX Senior



Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Whisky
Posts: 4,678


</td> <td class="alt1" id="td_post_6223140" style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(253, 222, 130);"> <!-- icon and title -->

<hr style="color: rgb(253, 222, 130); background-color: rgb(253, 222, 130);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Preussen
MJ, until you, for a change, exhibit some intellectual honesty and admit that you are in no way qualified to off-handedly dismiss the opinion of the majority of scientists you will never get any kind of credibility.

As I have stated repeatedly, I'm not sure to what extent global warming is real and man-made and whether the drastic measures we are supposed to take are in any way justified. Scientists have been wrong before. But people who act like they know that everything pointing to a global warming is misinterpreted or manipulated are simply stupid. MJ, care to tell us where you got the "facts" you mention in posts 7 and 13?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Preussen speaks of opinions of a "majority" of scientists. What majority?

Who took this poll and where are the results of all scientists that voted for this majority? Lets see those results that you people always throw around as if it's a damn fact.

Back up your own damn statements before asking for mine...and if you read my post on the ice pack you will see I cited an article and author in the Washingtion Times.

As a side note...majority and consensus are NOT scientific terms. They are political terms...a rather interesting observation of your doublespeak.

:toast:
<!-- / message --> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130); border-width: 0px 1px 1px;">

</td> <td class="alt1" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0px 1px 1px 0px;" align="right"> <!-- controls --> <!-- / controls --> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- post 6223140 popup menu --> <table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr> <td class="thead">Mistermj</td> </tr> <tr><td class="vbmenu_option">View Public Profile</td></tr> <tr><td class="vbmenu_option">Send a private message to Mistermj</td></tr> <tr><td class="vbmenu_option">Visit Mistermj's homepage!</td></tr> <tr><td class="vbmenu_option">Find More Posts by Mistermj</td></tr> <tr><td class="vbmenu_option">Add Mistermj to Your Contacts</td></tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- / post 6223140 popup menu --> <!-- / close content container --> <!-- / post #6223140 --><!-- post #6223170 --> <!-- open content container --> <!-- this is not the last post shown on the page --> <table id="post6223170" class="tborder" width="100%" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr> <td class="thead" style="border-style: solid none solid solid; border-color: rgb(253, 222, 130) -moz-use-text-color rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130); border-width: 1px 0px 1px 1px; font-weight: normal;"> <!-- status icon and date -->

12-29-2008, 03:34 PM <!-- / status icon and date --> </td> <td class="thead" style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 0px; font-weight: normal;" align="right"> #32 </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td class="alt2" style="border-style: none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(253, 222, 130); border-width: 0px 1px;" width="175"> Loren78 <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_6223170", true); </script>
RX Senior



Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,463


</td> <td class="alt1" id="td_post_6223170" style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(253, 222, 130);"> <!-- icon and title -->

<hr style="color: rgb(253, 222, 130); background-color: rgb(253, 222, 130);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Preussen
MJ, until you, for a change, exhibit some intellectual honesty and admit that you are in no way qualified to off-handedly dismiss the opinion of the majority of scientists you will never get any kind of credibility.

As I have stated repeatedly, I'm not sure to what extent global warming is real and man-made and whether the drastic measures we are supposed to take are in any way justified. Scientists have been wrong before. But people who act like they know that everything pointing to a global warming is misinterpreted or manipulated are simply stupid. MJ, care to tell us where you got the "facts" you mention in posts 7 and 13?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The Majority of Scientists? What Nonsense.....

Have you taken a Census of the Scientists who not only disagreed with the United Nations on Global Warming but have admitted publicly, they were threatened and blackballed when they came out with scientific proof Global warming was not man made...

Did you not read the Iron Mountain Report? Whassa A Matta wit you?

Global Warming is an NGO Mandate.....The money that went into the research behind this issue did not come from the Government.....you need to consider what the ramifications are behind that little piece of FYI
<!-- / message --> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130); border-width: 0px 1px 1px;">

</td> <td class="alt1" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(253, 222, 130) rgb(253, 222, 130) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0px 1px 1px 0px;" align="right"> <!-- controls --> </td></tr></tbody></table>

hno: :nohead: Not a response to either post...all the rest is just your bullshit...and you just keep doing it here. Over and over and over.

Now for the 4th time Preussen...What majority of scientists? :lol:

 

[Preussen]

MJ, it's painfully obvious that you'd do anything to avoid having to say anything of substance. I mean, you even quote a post from Loren, how deep can you sink?

The point of this thread is whether man-made global warming has been disproved or not. If you don't believe me, just read the thread title again. This side discussion about majority and consensus is entirely of your making (btw, I did notice that you didn't have a reply to the definitions of consensus I posted, but I'll let this slide) and is, as I have explained, irrelevant because my point still stands even if I were to concede that there is no majority. Read my last post, tell me if you choose a) or b) (or show me that I missed something and there is a third option). Until you do, arguing about other things makes no sense.

 

[Woody0]

Flew over Greenland again this past August on the great circle route from Vancouver to Manchester. I even saw with my own eyes the increased melting this past year from the trips of previous years. I know ice melts when the temperature exceeds 32 F. I've been flying this route over the past 35 years.

I conclude that its still getting warmer.

I think it must be my plane that's responsible.

 

[Mistermj]

MJ, it's painfully obvious that you'd do anything to avoid having to say anything of substance. I mean, you even quote a post from Loren, how deep can you sink?

The point of this thread is whether man-made global warming has been disproved or not. If you don't believe me, just read the thread title again. This side discussion about majority and consensus is entirely of your making (btw, I did notice that you didn't have a reply to the definitions of consensus I posted, but I'll let this slide) and is, as I have explained, irrelevant because my point still stands even if I were to concede that there is no majority. Read my last post, tell me if you choose a) or b) (or show me that I missed something and there is a third option). Until you do, arguing about other things makes no sense.

Preussen, you continue to dodge a fair and basic question that started the debate between us in this thread. It's fair for me to expect an answer from you before I have to answer your questions.

This is why I continue to have no respect for your opinion...or your hit and run methods of internet trolling.

Now, you also take a despicable shot at Loren.

You seem to be suggesting that Loren is sub-human and not worthy of questioning your post about a so called majority of scientists...that we both recognized as bullshit...and called you on it.

You obviously know it was bullshit...because you have contorted yourself through about 10 posts avoiding it ever since.
I won't even get into your circle logic of consensus explanations. :lol:

 

[punter]

Flew over Greenland again this past August on the great circle route from Vancouver to Manchester. I even saw with my own eyes the increased melting this past year from the trips of previous years. I know ice melts when the temperature exceeds 32 F. I've been flying this route over the past 35 years.

I conclude that its still getting warmer.

I think it must be my plane that's responsible.

Who you going to believe, mj or your lying eyes?

 

[Preussen]

Preussen, you continue to dodge a fair and basic question that started the debate between us in this thread. It's fair for me to expect an answer from you before I have to answer your questions.

This is why I continue to have no respect for your opinion...or your hit and run methods of internet trolling.

I am the one who is dodging a question? You really crack me up, MJ.
But okay, if you choose to ignore my previous posts, I will spell it out for you even more clearly: I do not know and I'm too lazy to research the number of scientists who fully or partially support the global warming theory, who oppose it and who are undecided. So I declare that while I'm convinced that a majority od scientists believes in global warming or at least the possibility of it, I do not have tangible proof at hand.

Satisfied? Can we now go on to discuss the material things? As I have stated before and will state again, the exact number of scientists supporting global warming is irrelevant, which is why I see no reason to determine it. The only thing that counts is the question whether the global warming theory should be taken serious or not. You will not be able to dispute that for decades now this is handled as a serious issue almost all over the world, not only by environmental groups but more and more by the governments of most countries. This is not some crazy scientists developing strange theories or fringe environmental groups panicking, this is a huge number of influential and knowledgeable people around the world being worried. Of course this does not mean that (man-made) global warming must be true (if you will remember, I myself am not convinced), but anybody believing it can be off-handedly dismissed despite all the attention this issue gets must be a fool or a kook.

Now, you also take a despicable shot at Loren.

You seem to be suggesting that Loren is sub-human and not worthy of questioning your post about a so called majority of scientists...

I made no suggestion whatsoever about Loren as a human being.
I do, however, question his credibility as a poster in this forum. If you quote Loren in order to strengthen your argumentation you are implying that you believe Loren to be able and willing to lead sensible, rational discussions. You are free to do that, of course, but you should be aware that when you employ the leading "Kook of the Year" candidate (who even campaigns to win this award) in your argumentation then your credibility in this forum might suffer a little bit. ;-)

I won't even get into your circle logic of consensus explanations.

Why not? I guess I know why - because you cannot.
Oh MJ, you really should admit defeat once in a while, it would be a lot less embarrassing for you than the sorry show you always put on in order to try to mask your ignorance.

 

[festeringZit]

Who you going to believe, mj or your lying eyes?

Punter,

I will help you out.

No one is denying that there are global temperature trends.

What we are contending is that man is not causing these by
driving their SUVs, and according to Cheryl Crow, using too much
toilet paper.

I've only pointed this out about 5 times on here already.

Do you get it now?

 

[Mistermj]

The poles ice packs are at their smallest in recorded history and mj bounces up and down hollering "Look at me I'm a fucking idiot".

:nohead:

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13834

Good one Punter! :lol:...lets see if you are man enough to apologize. :toast:

 

[BillyWaltersJr+]

Global warming is the biggest farce ever, hands down.

Gorebull Warming.

 

[BillyWaltersJr+]

Flew over Greenland again this past August on the great circle route from Vancouver to Manchester. I even saw with my own eyes the increased melting this past year from the trips of previous years. I know ice melts when the temperature exceeds 32 F. I've been flying this route over the past 35 years.

I conclude that its still getting warmer.

I think it must be my plane that's responsible.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/the-ice-in-greenland-is-growing/

:tongue2:

 

[punter]

Why do you search the Internet for what other bloggers agree with you?

Try for articles rather than blogs if you want facts. Which of course you dont.

 

[Mistermj]

Why do you search the Internet for what other bloggers agree with you?

Try for articles rather than blogs if you want facts. Which of course you dont.

:nohead:Punter is a rather dim bulb.

The University of Illinois arctic research center isn't a blog Punter...:lol:
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
(Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)

:missingte

 

[SayHeyKid]

Global warming is all about a global carbon tax. Al Gore and the rest of his chronies don't believe the BS they spew.

 

[Preussen]

:nohead:

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13834

Good one Punter! :lol:...lets see if you are man enough to apologize. :toast:

MJ, did you actually read the article you linked to? I guess not, you always only read the headlines and jump to conclusions.
Yes, this December was relatively cold, but apart from the fact that one cold month does not make a trend, the article explicitely states that weaker than usual winds and lack of snow on the younger ice have significantly contributed to the recent unexpected growth of the sea ice.

Take a look at the graph provided next to the article and then, if you dare to be this dishonest, try to tell us again that there is no trend of sea ice shrinking, especially since 2001.

Btw, MJ, no reply to my last post?

 

[Mistermj]

MJ, did you actually read the article you linked to? I guess not, you always only read the headlines and jump to conclusions.
Yes, this December was relatively cold, but apart from the fact that one cold month does not make a trend, the article explicitely states that weaker than usual winds and lack of snow on the younger ice have significantly contributed to the recent unexpected growth of the sea ice.

Take a look at the graph provided next to the article and then, if you dare to be this dishonest, try to tell us again that there is no trend of sea ice shrinking, especially since 2001.

Btw, MJ, no reply to my last post?

No comment needed Preussen...this last post of yours is classic.

LMAO! :missingte :missingte

If you think an imaginary 8 year trendline is evidence of anything on such a scale as our climate...you are once again in the running for the idiot of the day.

You and Punter deserve each other....:lolBIG:

Classic stuff here...Punter is so confused he thinks the University of Illinois is a blog...and Preussen spent 18 posts denying he really doesn't know how many scientists believe in global warming...but it MUST be true.

Because so many paid government scientists said so! hno:

:lolBIG: :lol: :missingte

 

[punter]

:nohead:Punter is a rather dim bulb.

The University of Illinois arctic research center isn't a blog Punter...:lol:
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
(Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)

:missingte

Science Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Michael Asher (Blog) - January 1, 2009 11:31

A total adversion to the truth. Its a sickness with you.